Romney is obviously successful and intelligent. However isn't his pandering to the religious right a concern?

Question

LOL @ EXPOSING LIBERALS...I'm a conservative you jackass. I simply have no time or desire to associate wyself with the Falwell / Dobson wacko wing of the GOP.

dkiller88...another idiot heard from. where did I say what my 'definition' was? the partisan zombie hacks on both sides of the aisle make me laugh.

kathy...it's 'pandering' when he shamelessly does a complete 180 on several basic issues solely to appease the theocratic wing of the GOP.

LOL @ CelticPixie...he has a law degree and an MBA from Harvard, babe, in addition to founding Bain Capital. While he hasn't sold me, to say that he's unintelligent is just you being a clueless partisan zombie who's overindulged in the left wing Kool-Aid.

Answer 1

It depends more as to whether he is pandering or really believes in those positions.

Answer 2

I agree he is successful and intelligent, but I don't believe he is "pandering" to the religious right. I say this because I don't believe he is being dishonest, disingenuous, or unreal when he talks to these people and tries to get their support. Of course, all politicians try to emphasize their common ground with those whose votes they need, but that doesn't mean they are pandering (although I would say pandering does happen). As for him changing his position 180 degress, is that really a problem, especially when it isn't really 180 degress, just a change. He did change from believing Roe v. Wade should stand and that women should have a choice, but that was because he had a moment or a change of heart. Don't we all have those moments in life, about one thing or another? I'm actually a Democrat, but I have gotten much more conservative over the last 10 years. That's not because I'm flip-flopping or am trying to impress people, but because people evolve or change. He still respects and supports gay people, just not the right to marry. I could go on, but I just don't think he's a flip-flopper (certainly) and that he isn't genuine. I certainly feel better about Romney than I do Guilianni or McCain. Just my simple opinion.

Answer 3

LOL @ your assertion that Mitt is "intelligent", lol here's some quotes from your guy:

"I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/romney-guantanamo/

When asked "If you had to make the decision, based on what we know now, if you were the president there, do you think you would have done the same thing?"

He replied: "Your question is a non-sequitor. Well, it's a setting that's almost a null set. Which is, if we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if he had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn't be having this conversation." Evidently he forgot that the IAEA HAD been allowed in Iraq..../sigh

He said this about France :“It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking,” Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. “In France, for instance, I’m told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past.”

Of course, this is a complete lie, he was confusing reality with a book that he had once read.

He's an idiot and yes his and ALL the candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) pandering to the war-loving, toture hungry, religious freaks on the right is scary.

Answer 4

I don't get how being up front about being religious is "pandering." His religion helps define him every bit as much as a Lib who embraces global warming, or abortion, etc., helps define them. It's only pandering if it isn't true and Romney would be crazy to be lying about it, because it would quickly come out that he wasn't religious. For that matter, being Mormon is probably a hindrance, because there are certainly some other Christian denominations that are vehemently against Mormonism.

Answer 5

You're kidding, right?

Politicians do not get elected without massive pandering to as many groups as possible. The real slick and successful politicians can pander to two diametrically opposed groups and get away with it.

Answer 6

Romney has turned "flip-flopping" on political issues into a new art form, which is going to be used against him by other GOP candidates before long.

I doubt he will make it through the primaries, thus won't be much of a concern to the religious right in the long run.

Answer 7

No a republican cannot win the nomination without some pandering to the religious right.

Answer 8

So, by your definition, the "religious right" does not have a right to vote? They shouldnt have a voice, just as moveon.org has a voice, or the anti-war lobby has a voice? Because the "religious right" stands for something that you hold in contempt, you think they do not have the constitutional right to have their voice heard, or to elect those they think will best represent them?

Answer 9

Al Capone was a successful businessman too. For many of the same reasons.

If by "religious right" you mean the mormons, then yes, there is cause for concern.

Answer 10

all politicians pander to some group, that is how they gain their supporters. It just depends on whether you agree with that position they are professing or not on how you vote.

Answer 11

I guess you haven't noticed the dems found religion recently. They're starting to sound like holy rollers,especially Hillary.